Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

 

2010-08-07 14:02:56
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981
We should've stayed and finished the job in 1991.

Fuck Wolf Blitzer and his crying on CNN over how badly we were decimating the Iraqi army.

Should've gone all the way to Baghdad in 1991, wiped out the (Sunni & Ba'athist) Republican Guard, wiped out Saddam and his sons, then turned the country over to the (mostly Shia conscripts) Regular Army, non-Ba'athist politicians, and civilians.

Knowing they'd have to get their shit together quickly, before Iran decided to annex them (like they tried to do to Kuwait), I'm sure the Iraqis would've figured out a new government rather quicklike and in a hurry.

As a helping hand, on our way out, leave a note for the Iraqis, "You're welcome.  Next time, try not to pick a delusional psychotic for a leader.  No more genocidal nerve gassing your Kurds, no trying to annex weaker neighbors, no more genocidal wars of attrition with your Persian neighbors"

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-08-07 14:06:40)

2010-08-07 14:09:13
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6918|Global Command
But wait.

Did not we bow to world will? The U.N. mandate did not allow what you suggest.
2010-08-07 14:10:43
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981

lowing wrote:

The fact is, we are in this situation because we as Americans are lazy and self consumed in our own little worlds, hoping the other guy will do something about it as we can not be bothered because we are far too comfortable to care..
This.

This bears repeating.

This is why the Western World is weaker today than it was 25 years ago;
Everyone talking of entitlements and rights, no one willing to do what it takes to earn or protect them.
2010-08-07 14:25:36
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981

ATG wrote:

But wait.

Did not we bow to world will? The U.N. mandate did not allow what you suggest.
Fuck the UN.

They did nothing when Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds
They did nothing during the Iran-Iraq war, where a million soldiers were killed
They did nearly nothing when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and would've been fine with a few strongly worded resolutions.

And the UN didn't do jack shit during the Gulf War either.  It was the US and allies that fought the war.  The US, Allies, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and a few other gulf states that paid for the Gulf War.

Fuck the UN.

They do little more than write strongly worded resolutions.
The UN needs to go the way of the League of Nations - into the trashcan of history, to be replaced with a modern world institution that actually does something to insure peace, stability, prosperity, and fairness in the world.
2010-08-07 14:32:28
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6794|North Carolina

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

The humanitarian side of Iraq doesn't really sit with me as there have been far worse dictators which the US has done nothing about. The war was a massive waste for both sides and I have doubts that any democratic government will hold any effective power in Iraq (at least not in the immediate future).

In my opinion, not only was the Iraq war a failure in its own right, but it also pretty much sealed the same fate for Afghanistan. If the troops and money used in Iraq were instead used in Afghanistan, I think we would be in a very different (and better) situation.
For the most part, I agree.  We didn't exactly oust Pinochet, and of course, we're a large part of why Saddam rose to power in the first place.
2010-08-07 14:36:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6794|North Carolina

rdx-fx wrote:

We should've stayed and finished the job in 1991.

Fuck Wolf Blitzer and his crying on CNN over how badly we were decimating the Iraqi army.

Should've gone all the way to Baghdad in 1991, wiped out the (Sunni & Ba'athist) Republican Guard, wiped out Saddam and his sons, then turned the country over to the (mostly Shia conscripts) Regular Army, non-Ba'athist politicians, and civilians.

Knowing they'd have to get their shit together quickly, before Iran decided to annex them (like they tried to do to Kuwait), I'm sure the Iraqis would've figured out a new government rather quicklike and in a hurry.

As a helping hand, on our way out, leave a note for the Iraqis, "You're welcome.  Next time, try not to pick a delusional psychotic for a leader.  No more genocidal nerve gassing your Kurds, no trying to annex weaker neighbors, no more genocidal wars of attrition with your Persian neighbors"
Well yeah, but the problem is that we escalated the Iran-Iraq War, along with the Soviets.  The Sunni and Shia hated each other long before the West and the Communists got involved, but after we did...  war and genocide became inevitable.
2010-08-07 14:39:12
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6794|North Carolina

rdx-fx wrote:

lowing wrote:

The fact is, we are in this situation because we as Americans are lazy and self consumed in our own little worlds, hoping the other guy will do something about it as we can not be bothered because we are far too comfortable to care..
This.

This bears repeating.

This is why the Western World is weaker today than it was 25 years ago;
Everyone talking of entitlements and rights, no one willing to do what it takes to earn or protect them.
Sort of...  although global capitalism is why we're weaker in terms of relative power.  There's a natural progression for the power of the world to balance out over more towards the developing world as they grow in prosperity.
2010-08-07 14:49:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7041|USA

Turquoise wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

lowing wrote:

The fact is, we are in this situation because we as Americans are lazy and self consumed in our own little worlds, hoping the other guy will do something about it as we can not be bothered because we are far too comfortable to care..
This.

This bears repeating.

This is why the Western World is weaker today than it was 25 years ago;
Everyone talking of entitlements and rights, no one willing to do what it takes to earn or protect them.
Sort of...  although global capitalism is why we're weaker in terms of relative power.  There's a natural progression for the power of the world to balance out over more towards the developing world as they grow in prosperity.
My argument is not of global domination, my argument is of domestic pussification. We are far too comfortable in our lives to rock the boat and actually demand changes. We are far too comfortable to risk loosing any of that comfort to sacrifice or a cause greater than our own bank accounts. We hope someone else will do it so we don't have to give up anything. This is why we have false hope in new leaders. Obama to be the latest. He was gunna "change" everything, make everyone rich, and all we had to is pull a lever? This is why he got elected, promises of deliverance without any real sacrifice. Next election it will be the conservatives turn at false hope without sacrifice.

Now the talk is of revolution and civil war, I doubt anyone in America is really prepared to endure the consequences of those choices.

Last edited by lowing (2010-08-07 14:52:48)

2010-08-07 15:02:56
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6794|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

My argument is not of global domination, my argument is of domestic pussification. We are far too comfortable in our lives to rock the boat and actually demand changes. We are far too comfortable to risk loosing any of that comfort to sacrifice or a cause greater than our own bank accounts. We hope someone else will do it so we don't have to give up anything. This is why we have false hope in new leaders. Obama to be the latest. He was gunna "change" everything, make everyone rich, and all we had to is pull a lever? This is why he got elected, promises of deliverance without any real sacrifice. Next election it will be the conservatives turn at false hope without sacrifice.

Now the talk is of revolution and civil war, I doubt anyone in America is really prepared to endure the consequences of those choices.
Well yeah...  generally speaking, revolutions only occur under dire circumstances.  That's true of any society, not just America.

On the one hand, complacency has some serious long term drawbacks, but on the other hand, I would rather live in a society where the people are complacent specifically because our lives are relatively cushy than to live in a country where a revolution is actually needed.  I'll suffer the conspiracy theorists and assorted wingnuts if it means I'm still living well.

It's not so much that we're any weaker than anyone else -- it's that circumstances dictate behavior.  For the most part, humans have always been the same -- it's only technology and standard of living that change.
2010-08-07 15:06:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7041|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

My argument is not of global domination, my argument is of domestic pussification. We are far too comfortable in our lives to rock the boat and actually demand changes. We are far too comfortable to risk loosing any of that comfort to sacrifice or a cause greater than our own bank accounts. We hope someone else will do it so we don't have to give up anything. This is why we have false hope in new leaders. Obama to be the latest. He was gunna "change" everything, make everyone rich, and all we had to is pull a lever? This is why he got elected, promises of deliverance without any real sacrifice. Next election it will be the conservatives turn at false hope without sacrifice.

Now the talk is of revolution and civil war, I doubt anyone in America is really prepared to endure the consequences of those choices.
Well yeah...  generally speaking, revolutions only occur under dire circumstances.  That's true of any society, not just America.

On the one hand, complacency has some serious long term drawbacks, but on the other hand, I would rather live in a society where the people are complacent specifically because our lives are relatively cushy than to live in a country where a revolution is actually needed.  I'll suffer the conspiracy theorists and assorted wingnuts if it means I'm still living well.

It's not so much that we're any weaker than anyone else -- it's that circumstances dictate behavior.  For the most part, humans have always been the same -- it's only technology and standard of living that change.
I am relating what  Isaid to the issues raised by ATG, we are loosing our country and we are too pussified to do anythnig about it, we just hope SOMEONE will.
2010-08-07 15:12:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6794|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

My argument is not of global domination, my argument is of domestic pussification. We are far too comfortable in our lives to rock the boat and actually demand changes. We are far too comfortable to risk loosing any of that comfort to sacrifice or a cause greater than our own bank accounts. We hope someone else will do it so we don't have to give up anything. This is why we have false hope in new leaders. Obama to be the latest. He was gunna "change" everything, make everyone rich, and all we had to is pull a lever? This is why he got elected, promises of deliverance without any real sacrifice. Next election it will be the conservatives turn at false hope without sacrifice.

Now the talk is of revolution and civil war, I doubt anyone in America is really prepared to endure the consequences of those choices.
Well yeah...  generally speaking, revolutions only occur under dire circumstances.  That's true of any society, not just America.

On the one hand, complacency has some serious long term drawbacks, but on the other hand, I would rather live in a society where the people are complacent specifically because our lives are relatively cushy than to live in a country where a revolution is actually needed.  I'll suffer the conspiracy theorists and assorted wingnuts if it means I'm still living well.

It's not so much that we're any weaker than anyone else -- it's that circumstances dictate behavior.  For the most part, humans have always been the same -- it's only technology and standard of living that change.
I am relating what  Isaid to the issues raised by ATG, we are loosing our country and we are too pussified to do anythnig about it, we just hope SOMEONE will.
We aren't losing our country now anymore than we did under Bush.  Yes, we're amassing large amounts of debt and getting entangled in useless conflicts throughout the world, but this isn't a "sky is falling" situation.

It's more like a "frog in a frying pan" situation.  Slowly, over time, we're losing our primacy among the rest of the world, but that's inevitable.  We did get rather addicted to our comfy position atop the world's economies and military powers over the last half of a century or so, but we'll adapt to a more balanced world just the same as we adapted to our previous struggles.

Granted, I'm not personally fond of some of the trends happening right now -- mostly with regard to illegals, but that's remedied by simply moving to another country.  It just takes time and money to make a major move like that.
2010-08-07 15:19:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7041|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well yeah...  generally speaking, revolutions only occur under dire circumstances.  That's true of any society, not just America.

On the one hand, complacency has some serious long term drawbacks, but on the other hand, I would rather live in a society where the people are complacent specifically because our lives are relatively cushy than to live in a country where a revolution is actually needed.  I'll suffer the conspiracy theorists and assorted wingnuts if it means I'm still living well.

It's not so much that we're any weaker than anyone else -- it's that circumstances dictate behavior.  For the most part, humans have always been the same -- it's only technology and standard of living that change.
I am relating what  Isaid to the issues raised by ATG, we are loosing our country and we are too pussified to do anything about it, we just hope SOMEONE will.
We aren't losing our country now anymore than we did under Bush.  Yes, we're amassing large amounts of debt and getting entangled in useless conflicts throughout the world, but this isn't a "sky is falling" situation.

It's more like a "frog in a frying pan" situation.  Slowly, over time, we're losing our primacy among the rest of the world, but that's inevitable.  We did get rather addicted to our comfy position atop the world's economies and military powers over the last half of a century or so, but we'll adapt to a more balanced world just the same as we adapted to our previous struggles.

Granted, I'm not personally fond of some of the trends happening right now -- mostly with regard to illegals, but that's remedied by simply moving to another country.  It just takes time and money to make a major move like that.
You are a perfect example of what I mean. You speak of abandoning our country and moving away. I am speaking of what it will take to maintain our country and are we willing to make those sacrifices, you apparently are not, and I don't even know if I am willing to put my family through the inevitable hardships that will ensue, for I to, am comfortable.
2010-08-07 15:36:51
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6794|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

You are a perfect example of what I mean. You speak of abandoning our country and moving away. I am speaking of what it will take to maintain our country and are we willing to make those sacrifices, you apparently are not, and I don't even know if I am willing to put my family through the inevitable hardships that will ensue, for I to, am comfortable.
You know what fascinates me about this common complaint towards those willing to move?  Most of our ancestors did exactly that.

If it's such an ignoble thing to leave your country of origin, then what does that make a country full of immigrants and their descendants?

If I desire to move away from America, that's no worse than a Mexican who wants to move here and leave his home country.  All that matters is that both of us follow the rules of the country we're immigrating to.

I'm not willing to sacrifice my quality of life if America starts falling anymore than many Mexicans are willing to suffer in the unstable mess that Mexico is becoming.  My inspiration to move is no different in nature from when various Europeans left for America throughout the 1800s and 1900s.   Sure, I'm not an economic refugee or a religious one, but if the writing on the wall is that my quality of life will eventually suffer due to debts we're racking up right now, then I'd rather hedge my bets and move to a much stabler neighbor -- Canada.
2010-08-07 15:55:59
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981
If my country supports the same ideals, ethics, and morality that I believe in - I will volunteer and put on a military uniform to support and defend that country.  Been there, done that.

However, if Californication becomes the law of the land, this will no longer be the country I grew up in. Then it will be time to look for a country that more closely aligns with my ideals, ethics, and morality.

Pretty simple, really. 
You have no rights but those you are willing to defend,
you should have no wealth except that which you are willing to earn,
and you should expect no privilege that you would deny your neighbor.
Work hard, play fair, take care of your family and friends, be responsible, be polite, and don't ask for more than you'd give.
2010-08-07 16:23:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7041|USA
Or we can stay and fight for the country that others before us fought and died for?
2010-08-07 16:45:11
rdx-fx
...
+955|6981

lowing wrote:

Or we can stay and fight for the country that others before us fought and died for?
What's to stay and fight for, if the majority of the population decides to go with Californication?

It hasn't come to that, but it's getting close.  Fight them until it becomes clear it is a lost cause, I guess.

IF the majority decides to vote themselves all the entitlement programs and bailouts their politicians can sign into law, then there's really no reason to try and fight them anymore.  The majority will have spoken, and I'd rather go somewhere else that remembers the ideals and dreams our forefathers fought and bled for.  Not going to become a partisan against the majority of my countrymen, that have legally decided on a course of action.

I am not going to put my child in the position to pay for the lifetime of irresponsible excess that has become the legacy of her grandparent's generation.  Free Love sex drugs rock n' roll and draft dogers, to "Greed is Good" yuppies, to McMansions and Subprime Mortgages and Creditcard Economy, to "where's my entitlement programs?!" seniors - gotta love the egocentric hypocrisy of the Baby Boomers.
2010-08-07 17:50:25
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7106

ATG wrote:

But wait.

Did not we bow to world will? The U.N. mandate did not allow what you suggest.
US has veto power. Only security council has any real power in the UN. Article 7 of the UN charter allows any P5 to invade any country if the SC agrees to it (they did in both Iraq wars afaik).
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-08-07 17:54:02
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6918|Global Command
I am just saying GB went as far as the U.N. mandate allowed and had he gone one meter more he would have been excoriated more than he was.
2010-08-07 17:57:12
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7106

ATG wrote:

I am just saying GB went as far as the U.N. mandate allowed and had he gone one meter more he would have been excoriated more than he was.
US sets the UN mandates. He just didn't want to repeat vietnam, because if he really wanted to stay he could've convinced the P5s to do it, and it was a hell lot more justifiable back then.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-08-07 19:02:48
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6918|Global Command
The U.S., sets the U.N. mandates?

[img]rofl[/img]
2010-08-07 19:06:06
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7106

ATG wrote:

The U.S., sets the U.N. mandates?

rofl
US contributes 25% of the UN budget.

Well the Security Council sets the UN mandates for UN missions. If the US wanted to invade any country, they could and the UN can't do shit about it. UN mandates only really applies to UN security forces. US has a huge political pull in the Security Council as well.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-08-07 19:07:36
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6794|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

ATG wrote:

The U.S., sets the U.N. mandates?

rofl
US contributes 25% of the UN budget.

Well the Security Council sets the UN mandates for UN missions. If the US wanted to invade any country, they could and the UN can't do shit about it. UN mandates only really applies to UN security forces. US has a huge political pull in the Security Council as well.
Pretty much...   and when you have the U.S., China, and Russia all in the same Council...  a lot of shit gets vetoed.

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard